I have discussed it with Decebal and we both agreed that it could be a good idea to open a topic about the medieval Transylvania. There are many controversies between Romanian and Hungarian historians in this matter and nacionalists often used this historical question as an excuse to hostility. The national feelings might be dim the view of historians also. Decebal and I opened this topic to come to know every theories, the viewpoints of each other. So I ask every Hungarian and Romanian members to be cool-minded and save this topic from flame.

The first question should be the connection of Transylvania and Hungary in medieval times.

Decebal sent me these links to this question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siebenb%C3%BCrgen - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siebenb%C3%BCrgen >>

http://media.ici.ro/history/harti_q.htm - http://media.ici.ro/history/harti_q.htm >>

http://medievalia.tripod.com/ - http://medievalia.tripod.com/ >>

I have not found good sources in English language yet.

In French:

http://www.mek.oszk.hu/02100/02114/index.phtml - http://www.mek.oszk.hu/02100/02114/index.phtml

In German:

http://www.mek.oszk.hu/02100/02113/index.phtml - http://www.mek.oszk.hu/02100/02113/index.phtml

These are translations of History of Transylvania published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. If there is any official Hungarian view, this is it.

I have read those links above and I have some questions.

�The voievodat is the old transilvanian political organisation and it belongs to the Romanian system � in Moldova and Muntenia�

1. Why voievodate is so special? What are the differences to any other principalities etc.?

2. Why did he or she think that the voivodate is a Romanian political system? The voivod word itself is slavic and there were many voivodates in Poland. Romanian historians proved that voivodship system was transferred from Transylvania to the other Romanian principalities.

�The Hungarian administrative structure consisted of comitat, a copy of Carolinian system, while at the east of Tisa the only political reality remained the voievodat.�

I did some research of some Romanian websites and I translated some relevant information.

Romanian Wikipedia (translated by me)

Voievod, a term of slavic origin, is one of the titles by which are known the slavic warlords. This term was subsequently borrowed by the vlahs north of the Danube. The meaning and significance of this term varies depending on the period and the geographic area.

In the sense accepted by the cancellaries from Moldova and Wallachia, a voievod title implied an army leader, as opposed to a "Domn" which implies an administrative leader (this is taken from the byzantine terminology). Starting from the 17th century, after the Ottoman Empire takes over most of the political and military power, the title of voievod merges with the title of "Domn" or "Domnitor", and becomes in the following century a high noble title equivalent with a pasha within the Ottoman Empire.

In Transilvania, the title of voievod is perceived as a noble title equivalent with the one of principe, which is the form which the Western culture uses. The term is preserved until the absorption of Transylvania in the ArchDuchy of Austria in 1691. The last vioevod of Transilvania is Francisc R�k�czi II, which uses the nominal title until 1711.

The title of vioevod in Transilvania is best preserved in its incipient form by the vlah nobles in  �ara Ha�egului and Maramure�, where this title, together with the one of cneaz, keeps on having the meaning of noble but also of a leader of armies or militias.

Transylvanian Voievozi

Mercurius, principe of Transylvana 1111
Leustachius, voievod of Transylvania and comite of D�b�ca - cca 1164
Szegfor - 1199 - 1200
Gyula from the clan K�n - 1201 - 1202
Nicolae - 1201 - 1202
Benedict - 1202 - 1206 �i 1208 - 1209
Mihai - 1209 - 1212
Bertold de Andechs-Merania - 1212 - 1213
Nicolae - 1213
Gyula from the clan K�n - 1213 - 1214
Simon - 1215
Hippolit/Ip�th - 1216 - 1217
Rafael - 1217 - 1218
Neuka - 1219 - 1221
Paul - 1221 - 1222
Mihai - 1222
P�zsa - 1227
Gyula from the clan Ratold - 1230 - 1233
Dionys from the clan T�rje - 1233 - 1234
Serafin - 1235
P�zsa - 1235 - 1241
Loren� - 1242 - 1252
Ernest from the clan Akos - 1252 - 1260
Ladislau from the clan Borsa - 1263 - 1264
Nicolae son of Paul - 1264 - 1270
Matei from the clan Cs�k - 1270 - 1272
Nicolae son of Paul - 1272 - 1273
Ioan - 1273
Nicolae son of Paul - 1273 - 1274
Matei from the clan Cs�k - 1274 - 1275
Ladislau from the clan Borsa - 1275
Ugrinus from the clan Cs�k - 1275 - 1276
Matei from the clan Cs�k - 1276
Nicolae from the clan Pok - 1277
Finta from the clan Aba - 1278 - 1279
�tefan - 1280
Roland from the clan Borsa - 1282
Apor from the clan P�cz - 1283 - 1284
Roland from the clan Borsa - 1284 - 1285
Moise/Moius - 1289

The following is my translation from

http://www.alburnusmaior.ro/Ro/situri/Istoric_Marinescu_2/01_I_4_Voievodatul%20Transilvaniei.htm - http://www.alburnusmaior.ro/Ro/situri/Istoric_Marinescu_2/01 _I_4_Voievodatul%20Transilvaniei.htm

The first political leader was called "principe of Transylvania", and was Mercurius, as attested by an act dated in 1111. Thsi dignitary doesn't seem to have actually exercised his duties in Transylvania, but rather stayed at the royal court. Afterwards, we encounter the title of voievod of Transylvania. The first to have carried this title was Eusta�iu - Leustachius waywoda Transilvaniae [G. Wenczel, Codex diplomaticus, VI, p. 486.]. By naming a voievod, isntead of a principe, the crown was forced to recognize the power of the old autochtonous institutions and accept for their representative the title of voievod, which was the title used by the indigenous population. The organization of Transylvania as a voievodat, and the survival of other vlah institutions: cnezates, the division of the land in "��ri" (countries), "obiceiul p�m�ntului - jus valachicum -" (law of the land), and the Saxon and Szekely counties all contributed to the autonomy of Transylvania from the Magyar crown.

However, after the 2nd half of the 12th century, because of the land allocation system practiced by the Hungarian crown, this autonomy beagn to be substantially reduced. Now, the large feudal domains were established, whether they be part of the secular or church arms. This phenomenon increased the servitude of the free peasants. The new land allocation system, started by king Andras II (1205-1235), which is the perpetual allocation (iure perpetuo), instead of the normal land allocation (donatio), contributed to the process of strengthening of the economic and political power of the nobility, to the detriment of the king. Therefore, in the begininning of the 13th century, Transylvania had formed a strong secular and clerical aristocracy. It tried by all means to trasnfrom the royal comitates in noble comitates.

Crowned in 1308, Robert of Anjou had to recognize large prerogatives for Transylvania which defined it as a distinctive country from Hungary. The prerogatives of the voievod consisted of the mobilization and leadership of the army, appointments in the administrative apparel, the execution of judicial functions. The vioevod was seconded by a general assembly of Tranylvanian nobles, which got together periodically, depending on the political needs of the country. With time, this assembly constitituted of the representatives of the privileged class, trasnformed into a Diet.

In the first place, this was constituted of the representatives of the Romanian people, as well as the nobles, which were mostly Magyar, and the representatives of the Saxons and the Szekely. In 1437, after the powerful social movements in Transylvania (the peasant revolt), a fundamental change occured.

The institution of the voievod was strenghtened permanently, the centrifugal tendences becoming more and more prevalent, which trend is proved by the instition of veritable feudal dynasties. During the time of Iancu de Hunedoara (Janos Hunyadi) (1441-1456), the country is put in an exceptional position. It constituted the centre of the European hopes for stopping the Ottoman expansion. The political and military successes of Iancu de Hunedoara were possible due to the support from the large peasant population, the cnezes, the burghers and minor nobles, and the collaboration between the various ethnic groups from the Soth East of Europe, as well as the common front with the other 2 principalities.

At the end of the 15th century, the independence tendencies were so far gone that the voievod Stefan Bathory used to proclaim that he was king and voievod of Transylvania and whoever shall complain to the Hungarian king about this better have 2 heads, so that if he loses one, he could keep the other.

My view on this issue is the following:

Between the 9th and 12th centuries, the Magyars conquered Transylvania from the local Romanian and Slavic population. This population already had a local aristocracy and land system different from the system adopted by the Magyars. Between the 12th and the 14th centuries, the Magyars phased out the power of this Romanian and Slavic aristocracy. Some of them were assimilated, others left for Wallachia and Moldova. In fact, Romanians accept that the royal lines and the principalities themselves of Wallachia and Moldova were founded by Transylvanian nobles of mixed Romanian and Slavic origin who were leaving Transylvania due to "persecution" or simply losing their traditional privileges in their homeland.

While still in the early stages of consolidating their power in Transylvania, from the 11th to the 13th centuries, the Magyars had to concede certain liberties and some autonomy to the Romanian and Slav elite. After the 13th century, the political power of this elite passed on to Magyar nobles. They took advantage of the existing framework and used some of the existing Romanian and Slavic institutions, to gain more power and autonomy than would have been possible otherwise. After the 13th century, Transylvania did have some measure of autonomy, but the power was not in the hands of Romanians anymore, but rather in the hands of Magyar noblemen, or sometimes of mixed origin or assimilated Romanian noblemen.

By the late Middle Ages, Transylvania was led mostly by Hungarians, and Romanians were left with a fringe role to play in politics, although they were the majority of the population. But the early political situation, and the early Romanian institutions laid the framework for an autonomy of the Transylvanian Hungarians which would not have been possible otherwise.

I have translated some parts of History of Transylvania. (I have some difficulties with English language so I apologize for the wrong grammar.)

Transylvanian territories south to river Maros remained in a different status than the Northern half of Transylvania.At first this area was not divided to counties, but was a single province headed by a voivod (in 1111 princeps ultrasilvanus) a higher rank than the comes/megy�sisp�n. Perhabs this rank was a posterior of the former Bulgarian viceroys. Anyhow emperor Constantine Porphyrogenetos used the name vojevoda to the Hungarian tribal leaders, he might be heard that the Transylvanian slavs used this name to their Hungarian Lords. Northern and Southern Transylvania were separated not only in organization, but also in estate-relations. In the North the descendants of the original Hungarian conquerors could endure, while in the South squatter families (perhabs the exception of the Gy�gyis) settled down during the time of St. Stephen and later. (�) All this points to a different time and circumstances of the Hungarian occupation than the Northern part of Transylvania.

(...)

Below I summarize what I have found in P�l Engel: Honor, Castle, County (originally Isp�ns�g). Essays on the administration of the Anjou Kingdom.

Accoding to Engel the administration of the Anjou Kingdom based on a honor system. The barons of the country (the palatine, the bans, and judge of the royal court, the voivod etc.  got large honor estates and castles. Honor (in old Hungarian becs�) generally consisted of several comes/count title.  The baron was only the keeper of royal property belong to the honor. Actually the baron's men (familiaris / servitor) administer the counties.

The voivod of Transylvania was a Baron of Hungary. This was the 3rd highest rank after the Count Palatine and the Ban of Croatia and Slavonia. The voivodship was a barony, an honor just like whole Slavonia to the ban and North Western Hungary to the Count Palatine. So in this system the position of Transylvania basically did not differe to any other parts of the realm.

Some more facts:

- Medieval Hungarian kings did not mention Transylvania in the royal title. (They use even the titles: king of Serbia and Bulgaria. Countries which was only temporary and partly conquered.)

- In official court text Transylvania was generally mentioned as the Transylvanian parts of the Kingdom.

- If we see the list of the voivods a lot of them are Hungarians (Mihaly and Simon might be Slovak, they come from the territory of modern Slovakia). They were belonged to some Hungarian clans. It turns out from this list that they usually administered Transylvania to a short term. It is clear that this rank was rotated among Hungarian nobles and was not an inherent title.

- Transylvania has a parliament, but this parliament was not a legislator, but -according to my sources- a tribunal.

All in all my opinion is: Transylvania was a part of the Hungarian Kingdom, but because of her distance to the political center and her special historical background had an autonomy within the Kingdom.

I think that the two theory has a common base. When the Hungarians arrived they found a native population. This native population made a great influence to the later political frame work. The differences: according to Hungarians the country of the gyulas has a much more relevance, and naturally do not speak Romanian influece (only pure slav) because of the migration theory. (If Romanians didn�t live in Transylvania when the Hungarians arrive they couldn�t influenced the later political organization.)

 PS. According to Romanian sources Transylvania was captured gradually in the 9-12 th century. Hungarians usually says that whole Transylvania belonged to Hungary since the 9th century. I think I have found a solution which resolve this apparent (?) difference. Hungarians differs gyep� (frontier) and hat�r (border). Hat�r is a line where one country nominally ends and an other country begins. Gyep� is a line where public administration ends and border guards stands. In early medieval times there were a large gyep�elve (area beyond the gyep�s and inside the border) around Hungary. I have read that the Transylvanian gyep� was expanded between the 9-12th century. I think that Romanian historians speaks about the gyep� when they speak gradual conquest and Hungarian historians speak about the border.

The voievod of Transylvania was naturally a Hungarian, because no Magyar king would aprove of the nomination of a Romanian or Slav voievod who could challenge the authority of the Magyars. Transylvania was not an united kingdom when it was conquered by the Magyars, as opposed to Bulgaria or Serbia, but rather a series of voievodates and cnezates . The Magyar crown was not about to recognize the concept that Transylvania was one unit, since this would encourage tendances for autonomy or even independence. Claiming to be king of Bulgaria or Serbia was simply a means of claiming nominal authority over those countries.

Referring to the question of the Magyar conquest and colonization of Transylvania, I'm quoting form the article posted under the heading "history of Germans in Transylvania" in the General world History section on AE. The article was written by Dr. Konrad G�ndisch, a German who may be considered a somewhat neutral party.

The advancement of the Magyars through Transylvania during the 10th to 12th centuries had a lasting effect on the historic development of the region, which was described from the Pannonian perspective as the "Land beyond the Forests". Taking the land of Transylvania occurred in several steps and was influenced by developing feudalism in Transylvania and by the relations with the Byzantine Empire and with the Bulgaro-Vlach Tsardom.

Initially they settled in Western Transylvania where salt deposits were or salt shipments had to be secured. This was the region at the Somesu (Kleinen Somesch), following the victory of the Hungarian general commander Tuhutum over the local duke Gelou, and the region at the central Mures under the leadership of a Gyula (prince of a clan), who selected Wei�enburg for his residence. After dethroning the headstrong Gyula in 1003, St. Stephen tied this territory, defined as "very large and rich land", closer to the Hungarian monarchy. A victory over the Pechenegs (1068 near Kyrieleis) ended their short lived reign and expanded the Hungarian state to the east. King Ladislaus the Saint (1077-1095) shifted the border to the upper Mures. In the 12th century the Hungarians moved to the Olsul (Alt) but the East and South Carpathians were reached only at the beginning of the 13th century. Now all of Transylvania was part of the medieval Hungarian Kingdom.

Traces of the 10- to 40-km wide protective barriers built by the Magyars bear evidence of advances in stages. These desolate strips (Lat. indagines, Hung. Gyep�) had earth fortresses and border guard settlements at passable locations (Hung. kapuk). Many names of villages and marsh (like Kapus/Kopisch) remind even today of the border barriers. Guardians, organized armed farmers and peasants were settled at the gates to defend the borders. As a reward they received personal freedom in groups.

Among the most important border guards were the Szeklers. They were originally most likely a Turk-Clan who associated early with the Magyars. There is proof of Szekler villages on the west and east border of Hungary and in Transylvania along the protective barriers, which advanced several times during the conquest. The Szeklers reached the present settlements during the middle of the 12th century in the valleys of the East Carpathians. They have been relocated for example from the "terra Syculorum terrae Sebus" near Sebes Alba (M�hlbach) to the later Szekler centre Sepsi in the East Carpathians.

After every advancement of the border, the desolate corridor of the old abatis border remained free and became crown land. The colonization of this crown land was very important, for strategic and economic reasons. It appeared necessary to have strife and war tested settlers in this newly established forefield of the abatis border, capable to clear and cultivate the land and enter into farming, handicrafts and commerce, but also to satisfy the requirements for salt and precious metals, and develop mineral resources.

One of the first Hungarian documents which mentioned Transylvania stresses the economic importance of these settlers. King Geysa I in 1075 endowed the Benedictine cloister in Gran which he founded with the reference to "ultra silvam" the salina near Thorenburg and with half of the royal income "in loco, qui dicitur hungarice Aranas, latine autem Aureus". (Footnote 4).

As you can see, the border advanced gradually over 2 or 3 centuries, and not in one shot. As for the migration theory, I too agree with the theory of Kurt Horedt. The funny thing is that I recently arrived to this conclusion independently, without hearing of Dr. Horedt's theories. Below, you'll see his opinion.

Historian and archaeologist Kurt Horedt, who by background is not involved with the political aspects of the scientific arguments, offers a mostly non-prejudiced and sensible compromise: Withdrawing from Dacia, the Roman empire did not remove the entire population. The remaining Romans were slavicized during the 7th century. These slavicized Romans mixed with the romanized Thracians, a people of migrating shepherds in the 9th century, originating from the Balkan peninsula. The presence of these Romanians may date to the 10th century. A later migration during the 13th century is not probable.

In other words, a part at least of the Romanian Transylvanian population was established there for centuries before the Magyars came. The other part of the Romanian population came in the 9th and 10th centuries, which is to say right before, or in some areas at the same time with the Magyar conquest.

I don't want to go too deep into details of this issue, which is fairly complex by itself, but a 12th century Hungarian chronicle, Gesta Hungarorum, affirms that when the Magyars arrived in Pannonia, surrounding areas were inhabited by Vlachs (Romanians). Also, a chronicle by Venerable Nestor (1056 - 1136 AD) mentions Walachians (Romanians) fighting against Magyars north of the Danube in 6406 (898).
While these 2 sources have been contested by some, in my opinion they do strengthen the theory that one way or another, Romanians were living in Transylvania by the time the Magyars invaded it.

[QUOTE=Decebal] The voievod of Transylvania was naturally a Hungarian, because no Magyar king would aprove of the nomination of a Romanian or Slav voievod who could challenge the authority of the Magyars. Transylvania was not an united kingdom when it was conquered by the Magyars, as opposed to Bulgaria or Serbia, but rather a series of voievodates and cnezates . The Magyar crown was not about to recognize the concept that Transylvania was one unit, since this would encourage tendances for autonomy or even independence. Claiming to be king of Bulgaria or Serbia was simply a means of claiming nominal authority over those countries.[/QUOTEl]

To tell the truth I haven't seen any reliable proof for the existance of a vassal Transylvanian state. Yes there were cnezates outside the counties, but this is natural in medieval circumstances. There were  autonomous territories for cumans, j�szok and even muslim groups, but this is not an evidence for statehood. In the XIII: century the borders of Hungary got fixed. Serbia or Bulgaria were the current territory under the rule of the Bulgarian or Serbian ruler. If they expanded the border the territory of Serbia/Bulgaria expanded. If a Hungarian king conquer some territories he created a new title for himself. Transylvania is not mentioned, because it was a part of Hungary. Titles were much more important in medieval times.

There must be some misunderstanding. Naturally the gyep� was expanded gradualy between the 9-12 century. Do you think that my theory is acceptable?

I have found this link about the Hungarian viewpoint.chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/chk/index.htm - http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/chk/index.htm >>

The work of Anonymus is not chronicle but a gesta, a medieval form of historical novel. Naturally it is a good historical source, but must be handle carefully. G�bor V�kony states:>>

"Many reserchers have viewed his work as an accurate source fothe 9th. century. Anonymus claims to have knowledge of Rumanians (Blaci) along the Szamos river at the time of the Hungarian conquest in 896. However he also claimed to know of Czechs in Nyitra, Bulgarians in Zempl�n, Greeks is Titel and Belgrad Cumans in the Banat, Germans (Romani) in Veszpr�m, Hungary. Contemporary sources -i. e. close to the time of the Conquest- assures us  that none of these peoples were in the area to which Anonymus attributes them, not even the Germans and the Bulgarians">>

Anonymus simply used hostile neighbours of his own age. (There is a minority viewpoint which states that Blaci doesn't mean vlach, but blak a known turkish tribe, because Simon of Keza mentioned that seklers caught their alphabet -turkic runes- from them.)>>

Nestor speaks about volohy as Gerik said above. By the way Nestor states that Hungarians capture the Carpatian Basin in the 6-7. century.>>

Proof for the migration theory:>>

The main proofs are the charters remained from this age. The number of the charters mentioning Romanians suddenly increasing in Hungary while in Serbia and Bulgria decreasing. There are For example Writen sources mention voivode Bogdan in 1334 who immigrated Hungary with so many people that the whole process needed 9 month and the archbishop of Kalocsa, the second highest ranking priest in Hungary welcomed him. I will try to find more example by tomorrow.>>

 >>

When there are no historical documents or conclusive archeological evidence, linguistic evidence is a valid tool to support historic theories. This has been done over and over again in the study of the history of area which lack historical documents, such as Africa, for example.

To be honest, I haven't found anything on the church terms in Aromanian. While I can somewhat understand the language, from what I've seen of it, resources on it are very hard to find. According to linguists though, the separation between the modern Romanian and Aromanian must have occured in the 10th century. This means that a migration, either north or south, or another historical event must have separated the two population at the latest in the 10th century, and possibly a bit earlier. This reinforces what I've said, which is that while a migration is possible, a late migration in the 13th century as some Hungarian historians claim, is highly unlikely, if not downright impossible.

Who's talking about genetics here? To my knowledge, no genetic map of the area exits for the 3rd to 9th centuries. Besides, Romanians are a very mixed population, with Dacian, Slavic, latin (including colonists from many regions of the Roman empire: Italy, Gaul, Iberia, Dalmatia, Greece, Asia Minor, Syria...) components. Let alone the more modern Turkish, Magyar and Tatar influxes.  Even if a genetic map of Transylvania for the 3rd to the 9th centuries existed, it would be a very difficult task to compare it to the modern Romanian population, and the results can easily be contested.

The elements that gave them an identity were culture and most importantly the common language. The question here is not whether they were the descendants of the latins from Rome, but rather if they were inhabiting Transylvania by the time the Magyars came.

I'm kind of skeptical about this kind of interpretation. While the Magyars, the huns and the avars may have had a common lifestyle, they were from different linguistic groups. To my knowledge, Huns were of Turkic origin, Avars of Mongolian origin and Magyars are unique, or part of the Finno-Ugric group. The homelands of these groups covered 20 million square kilometers. According to this way of thinking, this is like saying that the United States were only colonized by one people, Western Europeans, because the English, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch and even the Danes were all involved at some point in time. Of course, that is a gross generalization, because we all know that while those nations may have shared a somewhat similar lifestyle, they were in fact quite different from one another. As far as the Etruscans go, I think that their origins are still a matter of intense debate. Besides they only occupied Northern Italy, what does this have to do with Transylvania?

The Nestor Chronicle mentions the vlachs while describing historical events associated with early Russian history. This is very different from mentioning the Franks, which the Russians hadn't directly come in contact with, as part of the peoples of the world. Besides, it is a matter of perspective: this could be a long discussion, but it's not a gross error to say that the Franks are the ancestors of the French. As we all know, the French are the result of a mixture between the Gauls, the Latins and the Franks. This statement is incomplete, but not an outright lie. Making that statement about a people the chronicler's people had never met does not automatically qualify all the rest of the chronicle as a lie.

I have found a somewhat different explanation of the word vlach:

The origin of the word Vlach is disputed, some say it is possibly Germanic: the same origin led to the words "Welsh" and "Walloons" in other parts of Europe. The word Vlach could also come from the Greek peoples word "Vlahoi" which means Shepard/Goat herder. Slavic peoples initially used the name Vlachs when referring to Romanic peoples in general. Later on, the meaning got narrower or just different. For example Italy is called W�ochy in Polish, and Olaszorsz�g in Hungarian. The term was originally an exonym, as the Vlachs used various words derived from romanus to refer to themselves (rom�ni, rum�ni, rum�ri, arom�ni, arum�ni etc). Only the Meglenites adopted the term Vlashi to describe themselves.

Here's a link on Wikipedia exploring the pros and cons of various theories of the origin of the Romanians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Romanians - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Romanians

It's quite good, but note that the theory I adhere to: both continuity and a migration in the 9th or 10th century, is not there.

I'm sorry Raider, can you restate you theory? In the midst of all these discussions, I got sidetracked, and it's hard to follow exactly what your theory is. We started out with the medieval status of Transylvania and we ended up discussing the formation of the Romanian people and the Magyar conquest. At least it didn't degenerate into a flame war yet.

As I said, I do not know Aromanians have church words of latin or greek origin. I'll look into it, but it's hard to find detailed resources on their language. As far as their existence south of the Danube, Romanian historians have 2 explanations for that: 

1. A migration from north to south occured

2. The formation of the Romanian people took place both south and north of the Danube, but they were separated by the slavic and bulgar migration. This is a better explanation than the 1st one.

I personally beleive that a 3rd one is correct: The formation of the Romanian people took place both south and north of the Danube, and sometime in the 9th or 10th century, most Aromanians from between the Balkans and the Danube migrated north. The land north of the Danube already had Romanians though. Thus, the 2 branches of the Romanian people separated: one north of the Danube, and one in the Balkan mountains.

As I said before, I do not believe that a statement such as the "Franks were the ancestors of the French" makes everything that the Nestor Chronicle says, untrue. 

As far as the reliability of the chronicles are concerned, I am not aware of any other chronicles from the 10th to the 13th century that state that in fact the Magyars found the land to be empty, or occupied only by Slavs. In fact, I found a couple more that state that Vlachs were indeed there when the Magyars arrived. One is the Gesta Hungarorum by Simon of Keza, not to be confused with the Gesta Hungarorum  by Anonymous, which we've been discussing. It states:

Pannonie, Panfilie, Macedonie, Dalmacie et Frigie ciuitates, que crebris spoliis et obsidionibus per Hunos erant fatigate, natali solo derelicto in Apuliam per mare Adriaticum de Ethela licentia impetrata, transierunt, Blackis, qui ipsorum (Romanorum) fuere pastores et coloni, remanentibus sponte in Pannonia"; "Postquam autem filii Ethele in prelio Crumheld cum gente Scitica fere quasi deperissent, Pannonia extitit X annis sine rege, Sclavis tantummodo, Grecis, Teutonicis, Messianis et Ulahis remanentibus in eadem, qui uiuente Ethela populari seruicio sibi seruiebant" (see Szentpetery's "Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum", I, p. 156-157, 163).

This chronicle, dating from the 13th century therefore acknowledges the Vlachs to be the descendants of the Romans and to have lived in Transylvania when the Magyars arrived.

Another source is "Descriptio Europae Orientalis" / "Description of Eastern Europe" written in 1308 by a French anonymous writer and conceived as a information mean for Charles Robert of Anjou and Charles of Valois, the former a claimant for the Magyar crown and the latter for Constantinopol Latin Empire's. The Romanians are described as descendants of the Romans: "Notandum (est hic) quod inter machedoniam, achayam et thesalonicam est populus ualde magnus et spatiosus qui uocantur blazi, qui et olim fuerunt romanorum pastores, ac in Ungaria ubi earnt pascua romanorum propter nimiam terre uiriditatem et fertilitatem olim morabantur. Sed tandem ab ungaris inde expulsi, ad partes illas fugierunt; habundant enim caseis optimis, lacte et carnibus super omnes nationes...". Thus he suggests the Romans' descendants took refuge in Transylvania, where they remained thereafter. (see also O. Gorka's foreword to first edition of "Anonymi descriptio Europae Orientalis", Krakow, 1916).

The Gesta Hungarorum by Anonymous was indeed written 200 years after the start of the Magyar conquest of  Transylvania. But do you really think that the author could have confused the issue and said that the Vlachs were already in Transylvania 200 years previous, if (according to Hungarian historians), the Vlachs were only arriving in Transylvania when the chronicle was written? The author was also more than likely Magyar, so why would he make such a glaring mistake, which anyone from his time could have caught on to?

If you can show other documents of the period that state that Vlachs were not in fact living in Transylvania when the Magyars arrived, then your argument might have some merit. But if you have no evidence to the contrary, other than saying that these sources were not reliable, because of mistakes made at other points in the text (and what about all the facts in them that were actually accurate?), then this you don't really have a strong case. These chronicles are the the only ones from the time which we have on this issue and they all corroborate each other.

Terms of church hierarchy all come from slavonic, since it was the language of chruch serive in Romania since the 11th century. Romanian religious terms include:

Biserica/bazilica - church from basilica. Other latin languages use terms derived from "ekklisia" (�glise, chiesa, iglesia, igreja). Germanic use terms derived from "kyrios" (lord) (kirche, church, kirkan, etc.)

Craciun, from "calatio" - Christmas, as opposed to other latin populations which use terms derived from "Natalis Domini" (Noel, Natale, Navidad);

Rusailiie, from the pagan Rosalia, as opposed to terms derived from the greek "pentikosti" (Pentecote, Pentecoste);

Sarbatoare, from "dies servatoria" - holiday

All words in the "Our Father" prayer in Romanian are from Latin, except for 3.

The following romanian terms are from Latin (latin in brackets) and english translation.

ajun (adjuno, are),  -eve

altar (altare), - altar

cer (coelum), ski, heaven

a crede (credo, ere),  -to beleive

crestin (chrestianus), christian

cruce (crux, is),  cross

a se cumineca (communico, are),  -to commune

a se cununa (corono, are),  - to betroth, marry 

a se �nchina (inclino,are), -  to bow while praying, prostrate

a �ngenunchia (ingenuculare),  - to kneel

a jura (juro, are),  - to swear

minune (mirio, are),  - miracle

nun-nanas (nunus),  (I actually don't know what this is...)

nunta (nuptia),  - wedding, nuptials

pacat (peccalum),  - sin

parinte (parens),  -father, priest

a ruga (rogo, are),  - to pray

t�mpla (templum),  -temple

a toca (tocco,are),  - call for worship

s�nt, sf�nt (sanctus) - saint

I don't know about that - seems kind of a far-fetched explanation. How exactly do you get Roman sheperds/pastors, from French court loafers? There was a Frank presence in Pannonia in the 9th century, but at the other end of the country, towards modern Austria, not Transylvania. Also, their presence was mostly military, with some farmers, but no sheperds. It seems to me like it's a difficult to make that confusion.

I've looked at them, and there are some good points. However, many of the arguments used are shaky, or determined by nationalist impulses. I don't know what nationality Du Nay is, but most of his sources are Hungarian historians. He mentions one or 2 Romanians, and it is only to attack their views. 

I've read Illyes's book, which is quoted several times in du Nay. Its methodology is very biased. For example when talking about place names, many place names which have a disputed origin are assumed to be Hungarian. Many Romanian place names and geographical features are said to be of unknown origin. Also, Romanian had a strong Slavic component to it already by this time, so Slavic place names are not necessarily Slavic, but could also be Romanian. The authors quote some Hungarian court documents and point out that most names used were Hungarian. If you think about this, to this day, most settlements have 2 or 3 names. Hungarian chroniclers would have naturally used the Hungarian name. Also, the number of Dacian words is misrepresented, as is the balance between the Latin and Slavic words in Romanian.

Also, these books were on a hungarian history website. Which view do you think they will take? If you only read them, you'll be convinced of the Hungarian point of view. If you read the Romanian books, they are just as biased, but the other way; if you only read them, you'll be convinced of the Romanian point of view.

My point is that most Hungarian historians will have a biased view, but so will Romanian historians. Whereas Hungarian historians are obsessed with showing that Vlachs came to Transylvania in the 13th century, Romanian historians are obsessed with showing that there was an uninterrupted Romanian presence in the area; what is more, they also want to minimize the Slavic character of the Romanians. This leads both parties to make mistakes, generalizations and unfair assumptions.

I will reiterate my position:

1. There was a continous Romanized presence in Transylvania during the Dark Ages, from the 3rd to the 9th century. However, it didn't have a large population, and was usually ruled by foreigners: Gepids, Huns, Avars, Bulgars. By the 9th century, this population became heavily Slavicized.

2. The rest of modern Romania was never latinized enough, and since it lacked the natural defenses of Transylvania, its population was wiped out/ migrated to other areas. The Carps, a Dacian population living in the area, migrated to Pannonia. It has been speculated that they eventually ended up in Albania, and that the connections between Romanian and Albanian can be explained by Albanian being the modern descendent of Dacian. Apparently, most of these linguistic connections occur only between Romanian and Albanian and not between Aromanian (vlach) and Albanian. This would make sense, since the Aromanians do not have any Dacian connections.

3. There was also a Romanized population south of the Danube and north of the Jirecek line. In the 9th century, as the First Bulgar Empire comprised both the area where this population lived, as well as the territory of Modern Romania, the bulk of the population emigrated towards the north. Its remains are the modern vlachs.

4. In the 9th and 10th century therefore, the slavicized latin population of Transylvania mixed with the immigrants from the South. Their languages were mutually intelligible as they both consisted of a latin substrate with Slavic influences. This gave rise to a somewhat different dialect in Transylvania than in Moldova or Muntenia, where the sheperd immigrants made up the great majority of the population. Also, many of the new arrivals were still continuing their traditional pastoral lifestyle -> semi-nomadic, as opposed to the old slavicized population which lived in permanent agricultural settlements. Thus, a much greater amount of settlements were founded by Magyars and Saxons, compared with their proportion in the total population, because most Romanians did not live in permanent settlements at this time, but took a while to settle down. This explains a lot of village names, and also why many geographical features had Slavic names, being taken from the settled slavicized latins.

5. While the Magyars conquered Transylvania in the 10th century, their control was only nominal for over 200 years. It took time for the Magyar settlements to advance through Transylvania, which is evidenced by the succesive waves of burnt-earth fortifications evidenced today. Also, the Saxon settlers were brought in specifically to hasten this advancement. Thus, while Magyar settlement in Western Transylvania occured right after, or at the same time with the settlement of vlach sheperds from the south, in Eastern Transylvania, the Magyars settled one or two centuries after the vlachs. I believe that this area of nominal control but no Magyar settlement is what Raider referred to as the gyepu.

6. The final major movement of population occured after the Mongol invasions, when most of the Romanian/Slav small aristocracy fled Hungarian control and established independent kingdoms in the ravaged regions of Wallachia and Moldova.

A number of Christian terms of Greek origin are found equally in Albanian, Bulgarian, and Rumanian; some were also borrowed by Serbo-Croatian:

Remark: akatist, napora, kaluger, and igumen are found also in Serbo-Croatian.

Source:
http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/dunay/dunay06.htm#K

http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/kos/kos03.htm

Again, why would Anonyomous make such a blatant mistake as saying that the Vlachs were there 200 years before, when this migration supposedly happened during his own lifetime? Medieval writers may have been prone to errors, but this one would have been a real whopper: it would have appeared as a bold-face lie to anyone in his audience.

Look, you can quote the opinion of Hungarian nationalist historians all you want. I could do the same and quote Romanian nationalist historians that say the opposite. It would be the same old tired arguments that have been thrown back and forth for a hundred and fifty years.

The fact is that there is no medieval source that says that the Romanians emigrated to Transylvania in the 13th century. There are some who say that they were there already, and the Hungarian historians have concentrated on showing why they couldn't possibly be true, or in finding alternate explanations for what they seem to be saying.

Pretty much all neutral historians believe that a migration did indeed occur, but it occured anywhere from the 6th to the 10th century, and not as late as the 13th.

If you can produce a primary source that shows that Romanians did in fact immigrate into Transylvania in the 13th century, then we'll continue the argument. Otherwise, we might as well stop here, before we dig up every piece of nationalist propaganda from both sides.

1) pastores Romanorum

Litterally: shepherds of the Romans.

According to Gyula Krist� this expresion reffered to the remaining avar population. The avars were defeated by Charlemagne and Pannonia was captured, but the avars remained. The avars were shepherd and they lived under the rule of the Holy Roman Empire.

2) "I'm sorry Raider, can you restate you theory? In the midst of all these discussions, I got sidetracked, and it's hard to follow exactly what your theory is."

" According to Romanian sources Transylvania was captured gradually in the 9-12 th century. Hungarians usually says that whole Transylvania belonged to Hungary since the 9th century. I think I have found a solution which resolve this apparent (?) difference. Hungarians differs gyep� (frontier) and hat�r (border). Hat�r is a line where one country nominally ends and an other country begins. Gyep� is a line where public administration ends and border guards stands. In early medieval times there were a large gyep�elve (area beyond the gyep�s and inside the border) around Hungary. I have read that the Transylvanian gyep� was expanded between the 9-12th century. I think that Romanian historians speaks about the gyep� when they speak gradual conquest and Hungarian historians speak about the border."

3) Blacus in GH and volohy at Nestor

According to History of Transylvania It is proved that Anonymus knew the work of Nestor and he used his volohy as blacus, because he didn't know the difference between them.

By the way Nestor refers to Pannnonia, not Transylvania. Pannonia is modern Trans-Danubia. I think we can agree that there were no ancient Romanians in that territory. Nestor said that the Hungarians (Ugors) drived away the volohy from Pannonia. We know about the war between avars-and the Holy Roman (Frankish) Empires. It seem to me quite logical that Nestor refers to this wars.

Voievode Bogdan immigrated from Transylvania to Moldova and not the other way around.

Pannonia was not part of the Holy Roman Empire at this time, and it would be very difficult to confuse the mongoloid avars with the Romans, especially when they had been the scourge of Europe a few centuries before. And this would have been in western Pannonia, almost a thousand kilometers from Transylvania.

Yes, it is a pretty good assertion. I look at it as the Transylvanian states nominally accepting the sovereignty of the Magyars early on, and then the Magyars taking a couple of hundred years to slowly settle in the area. The used the gyepu system to protect their settlements.

If you read the passage above in gerik's post, Nestor says nothing about Pannonia, only that they crossed the Carpathian mountains. If you look on a map, it's still a very long way from crossing the mountains, to getting to the areas where the Franks ruled. Nestor would have mentioned something about that...

For your Franks theory to be correct, the Franks would have had to control Transylvania, which was not true. I think that this is more in line with my theory, whereby the vlahs came over in the 9th century and took over Transylvania from the local slavicized population, only to be defeated by the Hungarians. Besides, Nestor mentions Franks at other points in his chronicle and calls them just so: Franks. Why would he make the mistake of calling them Valachs? One way or another, the Valachs existed at the time and it would have been quite a mistake to confuse the sheperd populations of the Valachs with the powerful Franks who lived at least a thousand if not two thousand (in Nestor's time) kilometers away.

-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

I noticed as a personal observation that there are historical characters in Gesta Hungarorum. For instance, Ahtum/Ohtum is one duke who seems to have actually reigned relatively same territory as Anonymous' character Glad, and Ohtum gets also a mention in GH as a descendent of Glad. This duke is also mentioned in Legenda St. Gerardi (XIth century) where his conflict with Hungarian kingdom is pictured. Were all characters of Anonymous be born out of fiction and be misplaced (as some historians and forum users claimed), how this one gets a historical confirmation, and one of a relative accuracy? 

One argument about misplacement is a quick resolution over various anachronisms. If are there indeed anachronisms and are not our dismissive and erroneous judgements. An example: GH mentions "picenati" (which seem to point to Pechenegs) alongside with Cumans. Those who believe GH is rather a fiction, claimed this is an anachronism invoking the "piccinaci" mentioned by the sources of the First crusade. Probably few of them know (and I didn't know that until I've read a study written by Al. Madgearu) of the Chronicle of Regino of Prum which says that Magyars were chased away from Scythia by "pecinaci". I can't prove that Anonymous Notary used this material, but certainly the typical criticism that this possible ethnonym is an anachronism cannot be issued.

What am I trying to say? That a closer analysis and a wider perspective upon the medieval sources may show that GH is not a fantasy work, and though some of you may not like it, he may had used sources (XIth century sources, maybe even Xth century sources) to picture the stories of GH.

I also want to reply to one of the earlier interpretations:

So these "pastores" were prior to any Frankish presence and moreover, they existed in territories (like Carpathian mountains) where the Frankish influence was quasi-null.

 Where did these vlachs go after their defeat from the Magyars.Did they settle in what is now Serbia?

As far as I know no one doubt that there are real historical elements (like in a modern historical novel). Anonymus tells the story of the Hungarian Conquest not the story of Middle Earth or Westeros.

The problem is that -generally speaking- both Hungarian and Romanian historians consider those element truth which support their theories. 

2. For Kezai: K�zei also states that Szeklers used the alphabet of the Blacki. (It's a rather strange presumtion that Szeklers learnt the rov�s -a a rune writing of turk origin- from the ancient Romanians.) What is your opinion of this statement?

3. You seem very well informed in the questions of Romanian history. Are you a professional historian, a university student on history or something?

As far as I know it is nearly certain that he used the Chronicle of Nestor, and Hungarian historians beleive that his references of genealogy and noble families are quite accurate.

For Kezai: K�zei also states that Szeklers used the alphabet of the Blacki. (It's a rather strange presumtion that Szeklers learnt the rov�s -a a rune writing of turk origin- from the ancient Romanians.) What is your opinion of this statement? I don't think this statement is 100% accurate as probably few from these Hungarian (or medieval European ) chronicles are. But I'm sure that there might be a half-truth and that some hypotheses can be issued to attempt to reveal it. Were the Romanic people from those times and areas already mixed with Turkic people (Bulgars, Avars or whatever remnants of the Huns), and therefore developing an own culture? Were both Vlachs and Szeklers some populations with obscure origins but displaying some similar features, in a way that made some claimed they lived together and influenced each other (why Szeklers had to take the writing from Vlachs and not vice-versa, I don't know )?

Well, what do you think about the original question of the topic: the status of medieval Transylvania?

The status of medieval Transylvania is a very generous topic.

From the things which caused this paranthesis related to Gesta Hungarorum, I certainly don't agree with a full of extent of Hungarian control over Transylvania as they arrived due to several reasons (the stories from GH aside). I will list few of them:

- Written sources: In 10th century we have the testimony of Constantine Porphyrogenitus which says that between Tourkia and Patzinakia there's a 4 days journey. That suggests an uncontrolled Transylvania (not by Magyars, Pechenegs or other political power known/relevant to Byzantines).

- Archaeology: the early Magyar sites do not cover the entire territory of Transylvania but several areas - the western plains and along some large valleys like the one of Mures/Maros.

- Archaeology and numismatics: there are some coins which characterise the early Magyar sites - the western coins or the Arab dirhems (until 930 or so) most of them probably being used for decorative purposes rather than trade. There were no Arab dirhems found in Transylvania (they were mostly found in the north-east of today Hungary) and only one western coin from the period 886-955, when the Magyars were raiding heavily. It's a German coin issued by Berthold, count of Bayern (938/9-947). Needless to say, there are plenty of findings in Pannonia

Chilbudios:

Well, these pieces of information fit to my  idea which based on the difference between the hat�r (~border) and gyep� (~frontier).

But what really interest me: was Transylvania part of the Kingdom or -as Romanian historians see- was a vassal state?

Indeed, the possessions of Hungarian Kingdom in Transylvania are also studied from the point of view of gyep� (lat: indagines), and these borders are interrupted from place to place by kapu (lat. porta; and perhaps also porcz derived from the Romanian por�i). But beyond these borders, sometimes there are solitudines, terrae desertae, sometimes other political spaces (which sometimes can be bound by vassalages or other obedience acts to the royal crown of Hungary).

During X-XIVth century the Hungarian kingdom (at least in Transylvania) expanded this border and one process was a conquest of these "deserted" spaces (the royal acts are evidences from 12-13th century onward, the extrapolation belongs to me and we can discuss it; what it should be noted is that the discussion about royal rights makes sense only after 13th century since we have the written acts, before that there's less evidence about the nature of the conquest). The royal crown sometimes gives such border territories to various individuals or groups to take care of them, and thus expand the kingdom. For instance, in Maramures/Maramoros, an act (1445) mention the possessions of some local knezes which owned their lands from the immemorial times as they were given the lands in forests and inhabited mountainous places. They cleared and took care of those lands and the Hungarian king recognized their possession. In 13th century the Teuton knights are settled in the deserted land of Burzenland (note: these mentions do not support the extermist hypotheses that these lands were really uninhabited, the acts which confirm the Teuton ownership mention clearly they are given the lands but also their inhabitants: homines, qui terram ipsam inhabitabant). In the same 13th century, in Sibiu/Hermannstadt area the Germans are settled in an Insula Christiana in a deserted land (in illo solo deserto). Stelian Brezeanu has several studies on medieval Transylvania (mostly focused on the analysis of toponyms, but not only) where he tries to discover the ethnical, social and political realities of those centuries. The advancement of gyep� and the colonization/administration of terrae desertae are among the subjects covered by his work.

You have to learn to take a more flexible attitude and to understand historians can make some valid and well-justified points but sometimes also more hazardous ones. Also, you should read more extensively before drawing your own conclusions.

Al. Madgearu - for instance - has a series of works on the chronicle of Anonymous and on the alleged Transylvanian political entities where he attempts to synchronize this written source with other sources. Sometimes he has persuassive and admirable arguments, but we have to be aware of his declared purpose and consequently of his possible bias.
However, in this case, the mention of "voivodat" in his works has a justification (though not a very solid one). As Madgearu himself notes in a study named "Geneza si evolutia voievodatului Banatean din secolul al X-lea":

St. Brezeanu in "O istorie a Bizantului" (A history of the Byzantium) arguing about the 10th century Transylvania's space names these characters "duci" (dukes) and interprets the testimony of GH as a mentality, a belief in a subordination of this area to the political and religious influence of the Constantinople. He also characterizes the autochtonous culture of 10th-11th century as a "inceput de organizare politico-militara a populatiilor romanilor si slavilor, care coexista in acelasi spatiu" (the beginning of a political and military organization of the Romanians and the Slavs). Nothing about voivods, nothing about knyazs.
More relevant on the topic is Brezeanu's study "Inceputurile romanilor si maghiarilor in Transilvania. Traditie savanta si memorie populara medievala" (The beginnings of Romanians and Hungarians in Transylvania. Medieval scholarly tradition and folk memory). The land of Gelou is "ducat" (dukedom) and "tara ultrasilvana" (land/terra ultrasilvana). Gelou and Glad are "dukes". Again, not voivods, not knyazs.

 As you can see, Brezeanu doesn't subscribe to Madgearu's "common usage". So much about voivodship in GH.

You are wrong Anton, at least in Russian it's also volohi. Just take a look at the Primary Chronicle of Nestor.

So plural of "volhv" is "volohi"?

Volhv is a wizard, plural from volhv is volhvy.